In the case of State of New Jersey v. State of Delaware in 2007, a dispute arose over the boundary line within the Delaware River. The disagreement was specifically about whether New Jersey or Delaware had jurisdiction over riparian rights to construct improvements on and around piers extending from New Jersey's shore into the river. This issue came up when British Petroleum (BP) sought to build a liquefied natural gas unloading terminal on its property along the riverbank in Logan Township, NJ that would extend wharves out into water under Delaware’s control according to an earlier agreement between both states dating back to 1905. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Delaware by affirming that it retained authority over structures like docks and wharves projecting from either side into waters under its dominion as per their previous compact agreement with New Jersey; hence BP needed permission from both states for such construction projects.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of State of New Jersey v. State of Delaware, Justice Scalia disagreed with the majority's decision to grant Delaware authority over a proposed liquefied natural gas terminal on New Jersey soil. He argued that this ruling contradicted previous agreements between states and ignored historical precedent regarding jurisdictional boundaries along shared waterways. According to him, it was not reasonable or fair for one state to exert control over projects located entirely within another state’s territory just because they extended into jointly used waters. He believed that each state should have sovereignty up to its low-water mark unless otherwise agreed upon by both parties involved in such disputes.